Publication Details
Category Text Publication
Reference Category Journals
DOI 10.1111/2041-210X.13560
Licence creative commons licence
Title (Primary) Detection dogs in nature conservation: A database on their world-wide deployment with a review on breeds used and their performance compared to other methods
Author Grimm-Seyfarth, A.; Harms, W.; Berger, A.
Source Titel Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Year 2021
Department NSF
Volume 12
Issue 4
Page From 568
Page To 579
Language englisch
Topic T5 Future Landscapes
Data and Software links https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.t76hdr804
Supplements https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2F2041-210X.13560&file=mee313560-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdf
Keywords conservation dogs; monitoring methods; pointing dogs; protected species dogs; scat detection dogs; species monitoring; wildlife detection dogs; working dogs
Abstract
  1. Over the last century, dogs have been increasingly used to detect rare and elusive species or traces of them. The use of wildlife detection dogs (WDD) is particularly well‐established in North America, Europe and Oceania, and projects deploying them have increased world‐wide. However, if they are to make a significant contribution to conservation and management, their strengths, abilities and limitations should be fully identified.
  2. We reviewed the use of WDD with particular focus on the breeds used in different countries and for various targets, as well as their overall performance compared to other methods, by developing and analysing a database of 1,220 publications, including 916 scientific ones, covering 2,464 individual cases—most of them (1,840) scientific.
  3. With the world‐wide increase in the use of WDD, associated tasks have changed and become much more diverse. Since 1930, reports exist for 62 countries and 408 animal, 42 plant, 26 fungi and six bacteria species. Altogether, 108 FCI‐classified and 20 non‐FCI‐classified breeds have worked as WDD. While certain breeds have been preferred on different continents and for specific tasks and targets, they were not generally better suited for detection tasks than others. Overall, WDD usually worked more effectively than other monitoring methods. For each species group, regardless of breed, detection dogs were better than other methods in 88.71% of all cases and only worse in 0.98%. It was only for arthropods that Pinshers and Schnauzers performed worse than other breeds. For mono‐ and dicotyledons, detection dogs did less often outperform other methods.
  4. Although every breed can be trained as a WDD, choosing the most suitable dog for the task and target may speed up training and increase the chance of success. Albeit selection of the most appropriate WDD is important, excellent training, knowledge about the target density and suitability, and a proper study design all appeared to have the highest impact on performance. Moreover, an appropriate area, habitat and weather are crucial for detection dog work. When these factors are taken into consideration, WDD can be an outstanding monitoring method.
Persistent UFZ Identifier https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=20939&ufzPublicationIdentifier=24154
Grimm-Seyfarth, A., Harms, W., Berger, A. (2021):
Detection dogs in nature conservation: A database on their world-wide deployment with a review on breeds used and their performance compared to other methods
Methods Ecol. Evol. 12 (4), 568 - 579 10.1111/2041-210X.13560